Fwd: Re: John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)

From: Carl W. Conrad (cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 23 1999 - 17:24:56 EST


I just briefly ago sent the following message off-list to George Goolde and
Steven Miller--I really had thought that we might get this off the list and
that it was becoming tedious to some. But I see that George Goolde now has
another on-list contribution on it and also that Greg Stafford, whom I have
long known to be very interested in this text, have had further things to
say. Accordingly, I am now forwarding this on to the list but omitting the
"mile-long" citation of the correspondence from George and Steven to which
I was responding. I do think this has been a more useful "shaking apart"
(my read of what the Latin etymology of the word 'discussion' means) of the
problem of John 8:58 than I had thought was likely to emerge--and
considering the theological 'baggage' attached to this verse, I think it's
been a wonderfully amicable exchange.

>Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 16:04:52 -0600
>To: Steven Craig Miller <scmiller@www.plantnet.com>
>From: "Carl W. Conrad" <cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu>
>Subject: Re: John 8:58 (I am, I have been, I was?)
>Cc: George Goolde <goolde@mtnempire.net>
>
>OFF-LIST (content approximately one mile below, but less than the width of
>the muddy Mississippi nor so long as the distance between St. Louis County
>and Alton, IL, and certainly not so long as the distance between the banks
>of the Mississippi and the west coast of the U.S.):
>
'BIG MUDDY OMISSION'

I honestly could see no point in carrying this any further on-list, when
what I have to say involves no alteration in the stance taken by any of us
from that taken publicly on-list. I don't think there's a last word to be
said on this issue, or if there is, I don't see how it could be of any use
in altering the viewpoint of the other. That being said, however,
nevertheless ...

I still honestly believe, as I wrote this morning, that George was right to
say:
<< Which shows that we all have theological presuppositions which sometimes
color our understanding of the Greek text. >> Whether this be an ADIAFORON
or not (and what sausages or hot dogs--what a NYTimes crossword puzzle I
was working last night termed "a wurst dilemma"--have to do with it, I
don't know), I thought the theological presupposition in this case was:
"that the
appointment of the person Jesus for God's task preexisted before Abraham."
I cannot claim that is an unreasonable assumption to make, IF one is
willing to assume that EGW EIMI in this instance really is an instance of
what Steven claims, with unquestionable weight of evidence of the usage, to
be another instance of copulative EIMI. He did admit in the post preceding
George's, "that the phrase PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI makes understanding the
text somewhat difficult." My honest opinion, and I don't in this instance
claim much for it, is that the same difficulty arising from the phrase PRIN
ABRAAM GENESQAI attends Steven's way of construing it as the way that I
have construed it. Moreover, I can't claim to be comfortable construing it
as I have; I readily admit that I am satisfied that the other instances of
EGW EIMI in John's gospel bear no relationship to the self-revelation of
Yahweh's name to Moses in the account in Exodus 3:14--they will all explain
quite satisfactorily as instances of copulative EIMI. This one in John
8:58, however, is different. And if I can produce no other example of a
historical present used with a phrase like PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI, I submit
that it would be difficult to find another example of the copulative EIMI
used with a phrase like PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI. Actually my own conception of
EIMI here is NOT that it's a historical present but that it's a PERFECTIVE
present of a verb that has no perfect tense: "I have been existence before
Abraham's birth." Nor would I argue, as I think Charles Stevens was arguing
that John 8:58 alludes to Exodus 3:14. It really seems to me to be sui
generis.

In sum, it seems to me that there are difficulties in the construction of
this Greek text, PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI EGW EIMI no matter how one seeks to
explain the grammar. I think there are similar difficulties in the use of
the verb EIMI in verse 18 of the Johannine prologue: QEON OUDEIS hEWRAKEN
PWPOTE; MONOGENHS QEOS hO WN EIS TON KOLPON TOU PATROS EKEINOS EXHGHSATO.
Is this EIMI copulative--simply linking the referent of the articular
participle to a place? or is it existential? In any case, I think the Greek
construction is pretty much without adequate parallel here and again it
involves a usage of EIMI coordinated with a different tense, the aorist of
EXHGHSATO. My own perspective on the participle WN here would again be
perfective present, "the one who has had continuous existence within the
bosom of the Father--He is the one who has made him known." I don't claim
to be proving anything here, only "showing" what it seems to me to mean; if
you can construe it in a way that makes more sense to you, you're welcome
to do so. For my part I don't think this is a matter of one person PROVING
how the text MUST be read; rather I think it's a matter of suggesting a
conception of how the text MAY be read. I think Dan Wallace's dictum is all
very fine where there are legitimate examples to be pointed to, but ready
as I am to admit that there are plenty of examples of EGW EIMI as a
compulative with an understood predicate pronoun, "I am he," I still
haven't seen an example produced that quite fits this combination of EGW
EIMI with anything comparable to PRIN ABRAAM GENESQAI.

So far as I can see, there are distinct theological presuppositions
involved in the interpretation of this text, although I'm more inclined to
think that these are not pre-existing theological presuppositions so much
as they are surmises based on the effort to make sense of a very difficult
textual construct. And after that, I really don't know that I have anything
more useful to say on the subject.

-- 

Carl W. Conrad Department of Classics/Washington University One Brookings Drive/St. Louis, MO, USA 63130/(314) 935-4018 Home: 7222 Colgate Ave./St. Louis, MO 63130/(314) 726-5649 cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu WWW: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~cwconrad/

--- B-Greek home page: http://sunsite.unc.edu/bgreek You are currently subscribed to b-greek as: [cwconrad@artsci.wustl.edu] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-b-greek-329W@franklin.oit.unc.edu To subscribe, send a message to subscribe-b-greek@franklin.oit.unc.edu



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:40:51 EDT